Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 26: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:48, 26 April 2023

< 2023 April 25

Deletion review archives: 2023 April

2023 April 27 >

26 April 2023

Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination)

The closer chose one policy argument over another policy argument and the closing rationale reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. I am asking that the closure be overturned to either keep or no consensus to respect our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Aoidh had a particularly relevant rationale for keeping. On a straight ivote it was 13 editors favored Keep and 6 editors + the nominator favored deletion. See also relevant conversation with closer where the closer only highlighted the keep rationales that were weak. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer: As I explained in my close and I will re-explain here, I used the "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" as the meter stick. The highest-quality arguments that were rooted in policy came from deletes. All of them stemming from NOTCHANGELOG. Many keeps, on the other hand, were rooted in ITSUSEFUL, LIKEIT, what about foo / per other AfD, or INTERESTING. Because of that, they were given no weight in my close. I also explained why I did not find the expansive reading of NOTCHANGELOG by Aoidh, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I will note that, as mentioned above, I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas User:Guerillero's reading of the consensus was for the deletion of the article. However, their reasoning for how they determined consensus is reasonable and there is nothing problematic about the close. I still think WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IOS version history

Relist

Reason : the deletion discussion was started at 00:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) and it was closed too early by a nom-admin user at 02:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) their decision to close was based on the previous article for deletion discussion that from 12 years ago.
Endorse overwhelming support for keep (12 keep votes with some basis in policy/guidelines and no support for deletion outside the nom). This is very reasonable for an early non-admin close as there is no point in extending the discussion on what is a foregone conclusion (see WP:NOTBURO). Frank Anchor 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AFD closer, ~~User:Skynxnex,~~ Buxton, was not notified of the deletion review. 1keyhole, please remember to notify the closer of a deletion review as required by the DRV instructions. Also it is encouraged to discuss the close first before opening a deletion review. Frank Anchor 03:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Frank Anchor, I del-sorted and !voted in the discussion but did not close it. I believe Bruxton did. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I must have picked the wrong name by mistake, thanks! Frank Anchor 10:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Maybe the closer didn't really need to mention the previous AfD (which isn't especially relevant to this discussion), but either way, this was a perfectly valid application of WP:SNOW, and I'd respectfully encourage the nominator to respect the crystal-clear consensus and move on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as reasonable closure. To the extent there is a concern about a non-admin closure, I, an admin, am willing to vacate the closure and re-close also as keep. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh I forgot to mention two votes came from single purpose accounts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1keyhole (talk • contribs) 09:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deletion proposal had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.—Alalch E. 10:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no other possible outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: given the direction of 1keyhole's other NOTCHANGELOG nominations – namely Firefox version history and Google Chrome version history – I would suggest closing the discussion early was rather premature. Additionally, although the majority of the people in AfDs did/do want the article kept, WP:WWIN explicitly includes changelogs as indiscriminate information Wikipedia should avoid. Any competent closer should, and would, properly take that into account after a 7-days closure. Additionally, I find myself a little perplexed at people splitting the difference with the Chrome version history DRV; surely the relevant principles are the same? WP:NOTAVOTE, etc... Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - We respect the consensus. Also I see that the op has not followed the listing instructions. I will place a notice at the top of the AfD discussion for them. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The closer chose one policy argument over another policy argument and the closing rationale reads like a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. I am asking that the closure be overturned to either keep or no consensus to respect our policy of [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. {{u|Aoidh}} had a particularly relevant rationale for keeping. On a straight ivote it was 13 editors favored Keep and 6 editors + the nominator favored deletion. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero&oldid=1151829837#Close_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Chrome_version_history_(2nd_nomination) relevant conversation with closer] where the closer only highlighted the keep rationales that were weak. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 *''Comment from closer:'' As I explained in my close and I will re-explain here, I used the [[WP:DETCON|"quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy"]] as the meter stick. The highest-quality arguments that were rooted in policy came from deletes. All of them stemming from [[WP:NOTCHANGELOG|NOTCHANGELOG]]. Many keeps, on the other hand, were rooted in [[WP:ITSUSEFUL|ITSUSEFUL]], [[WP:LIKEIT|LIKEIT]], [[WP:WAX|what about ''foo'' / per ''other AfD'']], or [[WP:INTERESTING|INTERESTING]]. Because of that, they were given no weight in my close. I also explained why I did not find the expansive reading of [[WP:NOTCHANGELOG|NOTCHANGELOG]] by Aoidh, which effectively eats the policy, to be persuasive. --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
+*'''Endorse''' - I will note that, as mentioned above, I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas [[User:Guerillero]]'s reading of the consensus was for the deletion of the article. However, their reasoning for how they determined consensus is reasonable and there is nothing problematic about the close. I still think [[WP:NOTCHANGELOG]] should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 ====[[IOS version history]]====